“There is Space,and There are Limits”: The Challenge of Teaching Controversial Topics in an Illiberal Democracy

Abstract

Background/Context

Research indicates that across democratic societies, teachers face numerous intellectual and emotional challenges when handling controversial topics in the classroom. Less attention, however, has been paid to how teachers’ willingness to teach controversial topics intersects with political and other societal factors in different sociopolitical milieu and, in particular, in an authoritarian–democratic and culturally diverse state like Singapore.

Focus of Study

This study focused on constraints to the teaching of controversial topics relating to diversity and the manner in which teachers navigated their personal beliefs amidst the evolving contours of public and official discourses in Singapore. By attending to the intersections of teachers’ beliefs, state policies, and other sociopolitical factors, we aimed to inform scholarship on the teaching of controversial topics and illuminate states’ powers to demarcate the discursive spaces of teachers.

Research Design

The study adhered to the qualitative case study design. We collected data from interviews that featured various elicitation tasks to describe 35 social studies teachers’ perceptions and practice of controversial issues discussions relating to topics of diversity. Additionally, we drew on policy and curricular documents to portray the evolving contours of public discourse in Singapore.

Findings/Results

The findings highlight how the participants, influenced largely by state policies, differentiated between topics that were controversial-appropriate and controversial-taboo. In spite of the numerous legal constraints limiting the nature of public discussion of race and politics, the majority of the teachers regarded these topics as controversial-appropriate. There was, conversely, a consensus among the participants that topics related to sexual orientation were controversial-taboo even though there were no similar laws constraining public discussion of this issue.

Conclusions/Recommendations

This study challenges conventional assumptions about the impact of state-imposed constraints and controls on the teaching of controversial topics in schools. Under some circumstances, state controls and constraints can result in teachers having more freedom to discuss controversial topics because of the clearly demarcated political and social boundaries. However, if the state's position is ambiguous, this may result in a Kafkaesque situation in which teachers become even more conservative in their curriculum decision making due to a heightened sense of uncertainty and insecurity. Ultimately, the study brings to light the nuanced ways that state control and censorship influence the spaces and limits of issues-centered discussion, and underlines the need for research that attends to various social forces that frame the teaching of controversial topics in different democratic settings.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alviar-Martin

, & Ho

L. C.

(2011). “So, where do they fit in?” Teachers’ perspectives of multi-cultural education and diversity in Singapore. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 127–135.

Anfara

V. A.

, Brown

K. M.

, & Mangione

T. L.

(2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38.

Barber

B. R.

(2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age (20th anniversary ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Barton

K. C.

(n.d.). Elicitation techniques: Getting people to talk about things they don't usually talk about. Unpublished manuscript.

Bekerman

, & Zembylas

(2011). The emotional complexities of teaching conflictual historical narratives: The case of integrated Palestinian–Jewish schools in Israel. Teachers College Record, 113, 1004–1030.

Bickmore

(2002). How might social education resist heterosexism? Facing the impact of gender and sexual ideology on citizenship. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30, 198–216.

Bogdan

R. C.

, & Biklen

S. K.

(2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Byrne

B. M.

(1994). Burnout: Testing for the validity, replication, and invariance of causal structure across elementary, intermediate, and secondary teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 645–673.

Cornbleth

(2001). Climates of constraint/restraint of teachers and teaching. In Stanley

W. B.

(Ed.), Critical issues in social studies research for the 21st century (pp. 73–96). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

10.

Creswell

J. W.

(1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Creswell

J. W.

(2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

12.

Department of Statistics. (2010). Census of Population 2010 Advance Release. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/c2010acr.pdf

13.

Dewey

(1916). Democracy in education. New York, NY: The Free Press.

14.

Dye

T. R.

, Ziegler

, & Schubert

(2012). The irony of democracy: An uncommon introduction to American politics (15th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning.

15.

Evans

R. W.

, Avery

P. G.

, & Pederson

P. V.

(2000). Taboo topics: Cultural restraint on teaching social issues. The Clearing House, 73, 295–302.

16.

Garmon

M. A.

(2004). Changing preservice teachers’ attitudes/beliefs about diversity: What are the critical factors? Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 201–213.

17.

Hahn

C. L.

(1999). Challenges to civic education in the United States. In Torney-Purta

, Schwille

, & Amadeo

(Eds.), Civic education across countries: Twenty-four national case studies fromthe IEA civic education project. Amsterdam: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

18.

Hahn

C. L.

, & Torney-Purta

(1999). The IEA Civic Education project: National and international perspectives. Social Education, 65, 425–431.

19.

Helsing

(2007). Regarding uncertainty in teachers and teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1317–1333.

20.

Hess

D. E.

(2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York, NY: Routledge.

21.

Hess

D. E.

, & Avery

P. G.

(2008). Discussion of controversial issues as a form and goal of democratic education. In Arthur

, Davies

, & Hahn

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 506–518). London, UK: SAGE Publications.

22.

L. C.

(2010). “Don't worry, I'm not going to report you”: Education for citizenship in Singapore. Theory and Research in Social Education, 38, 217–247.

23.

L. C.

(2012). Sorting citizens: Differentiated citizenship education in Singapore. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44, 403–428.

24.

L. C.

, Alviar-Martin

, Sim

J. B.-Y.

, & Yap

P. S.

(2011). Civic disparities: Exploring students’ perceptions of citizenship within Singapore's academic tracks. Theory and Research in Social Education, 39, 298–316.

25.

K. L.

(2000). The politics of policy-making in Singapore. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

26.

Krosnick

J. A.

(1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567.

27.

Lee

H. L.

(2007). Penal Code (Amendment Bill), Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard). Retrieved from http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00072427-ZZ&currentPubID=00075232-ZZ&topicKey=00075232-ZZ.00072427-ZZ_1%23%23

28.

McClosky

, & Brill

(1983). Dimensions of tolerance: What Americans believe about civil liberties. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

29.

McCully

(2006). Practitioner perceptions of their role in facilitating the handling of controversial issues in contested societies: A Northern Irish experience. Educational Review, 58, 51–65.

30.

Merriam

S. B.

(2002). Qualitative and case study applications in educational research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

31.

Miles

M. B.

, & Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

32.

Misco

(2011). Deontological reconceptualization: A study of moral education in Beijing. Theory and Research in Social Education, 39, 464–493.

33.

Misco

, & Patterson

N. C.

(2007). A study of pre-service teachers’ conceptualizations of academic freedoms and controversial issues. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35, 520–550.

34.

Nelson

J. L.

, & Ochoa

A. S.

(1987). Academic freedom, censorship, and the social studies. Social Education, 51, 424–427.

35.

Neo

J. L.-C.

(2011, December). Seditious in Singapore! Free speech and the offence of promoting ill-will and hostility between different racial groups. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 1–22.

36.

E. H.

(2009). Remarks by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence on Sexuality Education Programmes in schools [Web page]. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2009/05/21/remarks-by-dr-ng-eng-hen-on-se.php

37.

Oulton

, Day

, Dillon

, & Grace

(2004). Controversial issues - teachers’ attitude and practices in the context of citizenship education. Oxford Review of Education, 30, 489–507.

38.

Parker

W. C.

(Ed.). (2010). Social studies today: Research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

39.

Parliament of Singapore. (1991). Shared Values White Paper: Cmd. 1 of 1991.

40.

Parliament of Singapore. (2008). Parliamentary debates official report for sitting on 27th Aug 2008. Retrieved from http://www.pap.org.sg/articleview.php?id=3688&cid=84

41.

Pohan

C. A.

(1996). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about diversity: Uncovering factors leading to multicultural responsiveness. Equity & Excellence in Education, 29, 62–69.

42.

Schultz

, Buck

, & Niesz

(2000). Democratizing conversations: Racialized talk in a post-desegregated middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 33–65.

43.

Schwab

R. L.

(1983). Teacher burnout: Moving beyond “Psychobabble”. Theory into Practice, 22(1), 21–26.

44.

Schmidt

(2000). Role theory, emotions, and identity in the department headship of secondary schooling. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 827–842.

45.

Sen

(1999). Democracy as a universal value. Journal of Democracy, 10, 3–17.

46.

Sen

(2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

47.

Singapore Ministry of Education. (2007). Report of the Committee on National Education. Singapore: Ministry of Education.

48.

Singapore Ministry of Education. (2012). MOE framework for sexuality education. Retrieved from http://moe.gov.sg/education/programmes/social-emotional-learning/sexuality-education/framework/

49.

Smith

, Moallem

, & Sherrill

(1997). How preservice teachers think about cultural diversity: A closer look at factors which influence their beliefs toward equality. Educational Foundations, 11, 41–61.

50.

Tan

E. K. B.

(2010). The evolving social compact and the transformation of Singapore: Going beyond quid pro quo in governance. In Chong

(Ed.), Management of success: Singapore revisited (pp. 80–99). Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.

51.

Tan

S. H.

(2011). Religion in the abortion discourse in Singapore: A case study of the relevance of religious arguments in law-making in multi-religious democracies. The Journal of Law and Religion, 16, 505–539.

52.

Tesch

(1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York, NY: Falmer.

53.

Wong

(2000). Education in a multicultural setting—the Singapore experience. Retrieved from www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2000/sp24112000_print.htm

54.

Young

I. M.

(2002). Inclusion and democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

55.

Zakaria

(1997). The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76(6), 22–43.

56.

Zembylas

, & Kambani

(2012). The teaching of controversial issues during elementary-level history instruction: Greek-Cypriot teachers’ perceptions and emotions. Theory and Research in Social Education, 40, 107–133.